Paul R. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vincent S. LUCIANATELLI, Defendant-Respondent
Supreme Court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined in Insurance Law § 5102(d). In opposition to the motion, plaintiff raised a question of fact whether he sustained a fractured sternum in the automobile accident (cf., Eisen v. Walter & Samuels, 215 A.D.2d 149, 150, 626 N.Y.S.2d 109). Plaintiff submitted the affidavit of his treating physician, who opined that plaintiff had sustained a fractured sternum, and the records of plaintiff's emergency room treatment, which also indicate that diagnosis. The report of the X ray taken in the emergency room indicates a “questionable non-displaced fracture of the xiphoid process”. Although a radiologist who reviewed subsequent X rays concluded that plaintiff had not sustained a fracture and a physician who examined plaintiff on behalf of defendant concurred in that diagnosis, conflicting expert opinions may not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment (see, Bitici v. New York City Tr. Auth., 245 A.D.2d 157, 666 N.Y.S.2d 188; Cassagnol v. Williamsburg Plaza Taxi, 234 A.D.2d 208, 210, 651 N.Y.S.2d 518).
Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated.